I have something to get off my chest: I am not Melanie Phillips.
But neither am I a Laurie Penny, a Jan Moir, a Liz Jones, a Julia Hartley-Brewer or a Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.
This is not a public identity crisis. I am just increasingly fed up of the space given to caricatures of women on the left and right when the female blogosphere is so desperately under-represented.
Last night, I attended Steve Richards' Rock 'n' Roll Politics at Kings Place (I recommend it highly to anyone who enjoys a bit of live analysis). Guests Jackie Ashley and Tim Montgomerie got into a discussion about blurred lines between the old definition of Left and Right.
Ashley noted that since moving from broadcasting to column-writing, she is often encouraged to take a stronger argument one way or the other, despite sometimes seeing fair points from both sides.
There is an increasing trend to 'write to incite'. Strong opinions or characters get traffic. Write something that gets people angry and you will see a sharp rise in website hits. Get someone high profile to write an even angrier response and you are laughing.
But this form of writing can be – and I repeat, can be (not is) – irresponsible. Can you name one female columnist for the Daily Mail that represents sensible, centre ground opinion?
Now, I am no means trying to do the sisterhood down. I am all for women having a strong voice that challenges the status quo. But when this voice is manipulated and taken to extremes to get attention, you perpetuate the notion that this is the only way for a female voice to get noticed (and kill off demand for a moderate voice).
You also isolate those who find it difficult to connect to politics already. Political apathy is becoming chronic – some suggest turnout at the AV referendum could be as low as 15% in parts of the country.
How is suggesting "the difference between Tahrir Square and Parliament Square is one of scale, but not of substance" or asking "how on earth Lefties can like football?" meant to re-engage anyone? It might get you a hit in the short-term, but long-term it makes those with more tentative opinions feel cut off.
I also mean no disrespect to the women I name at the top of this blog. They are all talented journalists who have worked hard to get where they are and often express their real opinions in a very eloquent manner.
But I find some of their more extreme pieces hard to swallow. Can Melanie Phillips write under a headline that "gays risk becoming the new McCarthyites" and not know that she is courting controversy?
Can Laurie Penny – who is a well-respected blogger nominated for the Orwell Prize – honestly criticise marchers on 26 May for "munching houmous and listening to some speeches" in Hyde Park, rather than going out and looking for a kettle to get caught up in, and not realise how dismissive that is towards many who are making a protest about their loss of livelihoods? Can she honestly write that the student protests are "a leaderless protest with no agenda but justice" and not feel a little tongue in her cheek?
Of course, there are respected female voices that don't always play to controversy – Rachel Sylvester, Polly Toynbee or sketchwriters like Ann Treneman were just a few names bandied around in my office. But I would also love to see more coverage given to some of online's best moderate female voices – not least our own Sadie Smith and Tory Francesca Preece.
Sadie actually put it very well recently when she said to me: "The desire for shock-jocks instead of the mainstream pundits dumbed down the [feminist] movement while making it more exclusive at the same time."
There is more demand for opinion nowadays. And one of the best ways to supplement a journalist's income is to become a pundit. To sit on a Sky or BBC sofa and give your personal opinion on Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, often with a party political slant.
The lines between news and comment have become increasingly blurred. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
We just need to make sure that the female voice does not become manipulated to sit on the political extremes.
PS. Of course, this argument is not just about women – male commentators and bloggers can act in just the same way. In fact, it doesn't have to be a genderised debate at all. But I will leave someone else to put that argument should they so wish to.
PPS. Want a bit of eye-rolling female reportage? See here: http://bit.ly/gJMsRg
Comments
Beth / April 12 2011 1:27pm
Excellent piece! It's disheartening to see so many journalists and bloggers, both male and female, seemingly intent on nothing more than courting controversy.
theProle / April 12 2011 1:30pm
>Of course, there are respected female voices that don't always play to controversy – Polly Toynbee
I was more or less with you, till you said that. Your argument made some sense.
Whatever you make of either their sides of Politics, it's hard not to spot that Polly and Melanie are actually just two sides of the same coin - the loony left vs ridiculous right. Claiming that Polly isn't controversial, or that she is respected (by whom exactly, most people I know either don't know who she is, or regard her as a shocking example of champagne socialism) just makes you piece look ridiculous.
charlie beckett / April 12 2011 6:05pm
Hi Amber,
I was at the same event. Of course, one person's mad left or right-wing ravings is another person's common sense. Journalism has always been about dramatic entertainment. But as last night's even showed, it's perfectly possible for two people who disagree deeply to have an intelligent, robust, police but fascinating debate without resorting to hyperbole or hysteria.
Cheers
Charlie
Jerry Hayes / April 12 2011 7:38pm
A first class piece! However I can name a respected and sensible Mail columnist., the redoubtable war reporter Ann Leslie. But that's about it!
Dr Kevin Law / April 12 2011 9:10pm
As far as I am aware, the press want to sell newspapers, blogs want to increase their traffic and media whores want to be paid to be on the TV/Radio. So being deliberately controversial has a function. It makes everything more popular. And being more popular makes more money. Plus it gives the pundits involved the chance to feel important as everyone flocks to see what they are saying.
But this article comes across with a value system somewhat akin to a 6th Form debating society. Fairness, even handedness and being a generally good egg. But the author is not comparing like with like. I very much doubt that the average newspaper editor or blogger who wants to increase their advertising cares very much about being fair. Likewise, without meaning to be terribly cynical, the average punter is not that interested in a balanced argument. They like a bit of red meat to get their teeth into.
What the author really seems to be saying is that when female columnists are ‘extreme’ in their views, this damages the iconography of women as balanced peacemakers. The implied suggestion being that if men are controversial – then that’s ok, because men are aggressive by nature and it’s expected. But ‘girls are sugar and spice and all things nice’, so for wicked editors to drive these poor defenceless females into making controversial points to be popular, is to plant a false image of how these women think.
Don’t you think that’s just a tad patronizing? I am assuming the author doesn't know all these female journalists personally, so as far as she and I know, perhaps Melanie Phillips real opinions are exactly the same as those she writes. Moreover the article implies that women are more balanced by nature, but isn’t that just a bit of an old fashioned generalization in these days of equality.
So hate to be controversial – but one might suggest that this article is not terrible well researched or thought through (Polly Toynbee – not divisive – that’s a good one) and seems to boil down to; ‘let all the women columnists be fair and balanced’ in what they write. A laudable ambition perhaps, but one that makes a few too many old fashioned and unproven assumptions about women journalists.
Peter Huntley / April 13 2011 1:26am
Polly Toynbee is an awful columnist. Whether or not she inflates her real opinions, she is hypocritical and her arguments typical of the unthinking left. On her worst days she's like a leftwing Glenn Beck.
Unfortunately, Polly is highly regarded only perhaps because the other high profile female columnists are even worse, Mel Phillips seems to be trying to single handedly refight the crusades, Jan Moir is pure hyperbole looking for an audience, Julie Burchill should never be allowed near a keyboard again and Mary Riddell seems to exist purely so that the Telegraph can claim that it's not completely rightwing. On the other hand, they do have Katharine Birbalsingh, who, while I don't always agree, does have sensible and sensibly argued views, doesn't snipe (Unlike Polly, Julie, Mary and Mel) and whom the lefties despise. It's always fun reading Katharine's comments section filled with outraged of Notting Hill (Or rather anonymous of anonymous) who hates the idea that discipline might actually be necessary in schools having completely failed to understand Lord of the Flies.
For me however, there is only one female commentator who is always worth reading. The extremely intelligent and talented Aleks Krotoski. It helps that she doesn't write about politics and writes with genuine enthusiasm and positivity. Something these others don't.
Negativity and disasterism and Polly's relentless we're all doomed cos Cameron is richer than I am (I seriously doubt it Polly) might sell papers, but it's bloody depressing week in week out.
Clara X / April 13 2011 10:26am
I suspect that female journalists still feel the need to smash stereotypes in some manner -- to say "look, I'm not just any journalist, I'm an extreme (insert something here) female journalist, which makes me better".
There is certainly a "write to incite" culture in journalism, as Amber Elliott points out. But is it really more common among female journalists than male journalists? Or do we just notice it more?
http://feminismfortories.wordpress.com/
Yonmei / April 13 2011 11:23am
You may or may not agree with the politics of Melanie Phillips, Laurie Penny, Jan Moir, Liz Jones, Julia Hartley-Brewer or Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.
But they're not "caricatures". They're women who are journalists.
Attacking other women for being female and in journalism and taking up space, takes for granted the patriarchal idea that male journalists are the norm, there is only so much space that women are "allowed" to have, and that women must fight each other for access to that space. This is not good tactics.
freddie maynard / April 13 2011 7:16pm
What? Polly Toynbee a moderate writer? The most hypocritical, one sided, echo chamber of the lefties.
mhilm / April 16 2011 8:54pm
I found the most telling point of this article to be the quote from Sadie Smith.
"The desire for shock-jocks instead of the mainstream pundits dumbed down the [feminist] movement while making it more exclusive at the same time."
This is true in any 'revolutionary' forum - atheism comes to mind. The big names take a radical stance that polarizes, hardens resistance, denies reasonable exchange, Those who truly want a thoughtful middle ground where ideas can be respectfully exchanged are pushed aside. Certainly, for those already on one side of an issue, who want to prevent rational discourse, extremism is a useful tool. Climate change denial comes to mind here.
As per women in blogging, Scientopia has run many posts on the subject, as well as on the harassment, disrespect, and unequal pay women still endure. It is apparent from these posts that women who speak up are far too consistently labeled bitches, and ignored, where a man voicing the same complaint is given fair hearing.